trolls_toll

i looked through your publications on google scholar and i see that in a lot of them you are: a) testing compounds in cell lines b) testing them in combination with some conventional intervention.

a) is limiting because a tiny fraction of compounds tested in cell lines would ever reach clinical trials. And the chance of getting through clinical trials is comparably small. In single percent points

b) testing combinatorial interventions is notoriously tricky. It is difficult to assess whether there it is truly beneficial to use several compounds due to large differences between patients and even within patients. That is in addition to a large amount of statistical issues with such screens related to samples sizes and so on.

q1 Are there any cannabinoids in clinical trials for cancer therapy? q2 Are there any cannabinoids tested in animal cancer models?

and harvard student has to say he is a harvard student

first is a case report (n=1), second is 327, didnt open the white paper, last is 108

btw these are descent journals

OP must have some knowledge on the things i asked. Especially if self-labelling as "a key opinion leader on cannabinoid research".

scientist's work is to do science. A large part of that is stating issues with your own work. If more scientists were good at their own job, there would not be issues like "prevalence of irreproducible preclinical research exceeds 50%" https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165

and trust me, it is much worse than 50% in cancer research since it is such a big topic

yeah, a person with cancer should probably follow their doctor's recommendations. For majority of cancers, majority of doctors suggest chemotherapy as a first-line therapy. For a good reason ie listen to your doctor and ask second opinions.

remember doctors are taught to treat people. scientists are taught to do science